PreprintCited by 7Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesSpeech and dialogue systems

RL4F: Generating Natural Language Feedback with Reinforcement Learning for Repairing Model Outputs

Open access
Akyürek, Afra Feyza, Akyürek, Ekin, Madaan, Aman, Kalyan, Ashwin, Clark, Peter, Wijaya, Derry, Tandon, Niket·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Despite their unprecedented success, even the largest language models make mistakes. Similar to how humans learn and improve using feedback, previous work proposed providing language models with natural language feedback to guide them in repairing their outputs. Because human-generated critiques are expensive to obtain, researchers have devised learned critique generators in lieu of human critics while assuming one can train downstream models to utilize generated feedback. However, this approach does not apply to black-box or limited access models such as ChatGPT, as they cannot be fine-tuned. Moreover, in the era of large general-purpose language agents, fine-tuning is neither computationally nor spatially efficient as it results in multiple copies of the network. In this work, we introduce RL4F (Reinforcement Learning for Feedback), a multi-agent collaborative framework where the critique generator is trained to maximize end-task performance of GPT-3, a fixed model more than 200 times its size. RL4F produces critiques that help GPT-3 revise its outputs. We study three datasets for action planning, summarization and alphabetization and show relative improvements up to 10% in multiple text similarity metrics over other learned, retrieval-augmented or prompting-based critique generators.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2305.08844

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Various refinement strategies use external feedback from knowledge bases, code interpreters, tool outputs, or separately trained reward models.

    “Various refinement strategies use external feedback from knowledge bases (Peng et al., 2023;Chern et al., 2023), code interpreters (Chen et al., 2023;Zhang et al., 2023), tool outputs (Gou et al., 2024;Schick et al., 2023), or separately trained reward models (Akyürek et al., 2023).”

    From AlphaVerus: Bootstrapping Formally Verified Code Generation through Self-Improving Translation and Treefinement (2024) · cites this paper as Akyürek et al., 2023

    The citation is attached to the claim about separately trained reward models. Section 3 (Background; page unavailable) says RL4F trains a separate critique generator to provide natural-language feedback while leaving the task model unchanged. The Learning via Policy Gradient section describes reward as a computed similarity metric, not feedback from a separately trained reward model. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, Jackson Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, et al. 2022. Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073. · arXiv
  2. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.
  3. Xinyun Chen, Maxwell Lin, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Teaching large language models to self-debug. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05128. · arXiv
  4. Mingkai Deng, Jianyu Wang, Cheng-Ping Hsieh, Yihan Wang, Han Guo, Tianmin Shu, Meng Song, Eric P Xing, and Zhiting Hu. 2022. Rlprompt: Optimizing discrete text prompts with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12548. · arXiv
  5. David Dohan, Winnie Xu, Aitor Lewkowycz, Ja- cob Austin, David Bieber, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Yuhuai Wu, Henryk Michalewski, Rif A Saurous, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, et al. 2022. Language model cascades. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.10342. · arXiv
  6. Felix Faltings, Michel Galley, Gerold Hintz, Chris Brockett, Chris Quirk, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2021. Text editing by command. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5259-5274, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  7. Patrick Fernandes, Aman Madaan, Emmy Liu, António Farinhas, Pedro Henrique Martins, Amanda Bertsch, José GC de Souza, Shuyan Zhou, Tongshuang Wu, Graham Neubig, et al. 2023. Bridging the gap: A sur- vey on integrating (human) feedback for natural lan- guage generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.00955. · arXiv
  8. Ge Gao, Eunsol Choi, and Yoav Artzi. 2022. Sim- ulating bandit learning from user feedback for extractive question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.10079. · arXiv
  9. Stephen P Harter. 1975. A probabilistic approach to au- tomatic keyword indexing. part i. on the distribution of specialty words in a technical literature. Jour- nal of the american society for information science, 26(4):197-206.
  10. Jason Lee, Kyunghyun Cho, and Douwe Kiela. 2019. Countering language drift via visual grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.04499. · arXiv
  11. Jared Lichtarge, Chris Alberti, Shankar Kumar, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, and Simon Tong. 2019. Cor- pora generation for grammatical error correction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3291-3301, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
  12. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74-81.
  13. Jiacheng Liu, Skyler Hallinan, Ximing Lu, Pengfei He, Sean Welleck, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Rainier: Reinforced knowledge introspector for commonsense question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03078. · arXiv
  14. Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Peter Clark, and Yim- ing Yang. 2022. Memory-assisted prompt editing to improve gpt-3 after deployment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.06009. · arXiv
  15. Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, et al. 2023. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17651. · arXiv
  16. Jonathan Mallinson, Aliaksei Severyn, Eric Malmi, and Guillermo Garrido. 2020. FELIX: Flexible text edit- ing through tagging and insertion. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1244-1255, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  17. Eric Malmi, Yue Dong, Jonathan Mallinson, Aleksandr Chuklin, Jakub Adamek, Daniil Mirylenka, Felix Stahlberg, Sebastian Krause, Shankar Kumar, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2022. Text generation with text- editing models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Confer- ence of the North American Chapter of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics: Human Lan- guage Technologies: Tutorial Abstracts, pages 1-7, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  18. Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2022a. Fast model editing at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
  19. Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Christo- pher D Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2022b. Memory- based model editing at scale. In International Con- ference on Machine Learning, pages 15817-15831.
  20. PMLR.
  21. Shikhar Murty, Christopher D Manning, Scott Lund- berg, and Marco Tulio Ribeiro. 2022. Fixing model bugs with natural language patches. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.03318. · arXiv
  22. Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Car- roll L Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow in- structions with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155. · arXiv
  23. Jonas Pfeiffer, Andreas Rücklé, Clifton Poth, Aishwarya Kamath, Ivan Vulić, Sebastian Ruder, Kyunghyun Cho, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020. Adapterhub: A framework for adapting transformers. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing (EMNLP 2020): Systems Demonstrations, pages 46-54, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  24. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text trans- former. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21(140):1-67.
  25. Rajkumar Ramamurthy, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Kianté Brantley, Jack Hessel, Rafet Sifa, Christian Bauckhage, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Is reinforcement learning (not) for natural language processing?: Benchmarks, baselines, and building blocks for natural language policy optimiza- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01241. · arXiv
  26. Machel Reid and Graham Neubig. 2022. Learn- ing to model editing processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12374. · arXiv
  27. Joana Ribeiro, Shashi Narayan, Shay B. Cohen, and Xavier Carreras. 2018. Local string transduction as sequence labeling. In Proceedings of the 27th Inter- national Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1360-1371, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics.
  28. William Saunders, Catherine Yeh, Jeff Wu, Steven Bills, Long Ouyang, Jonathan Ward, and Jan Leike. 2022. Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.05802. · arXiv
  29. Jérémy Scheurer, Jon Ander Campos, Jun Shern Chan, Angelica Chen, Kyunghyun Cho, and Ethan Perez. 2022. Training language models with natural lan- guage feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.14146. · arXiv
  30. Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Zhengbao Jiang, Fabio Petroni, Patrick Lewis, Gautier Izacard, Qingfei You, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Edouard Grave, and Sebas- tian Riedel. 2022. Peer: A collaborative language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11663. · arXiv
  31. Timo Schick, Sahana Udupa, and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Self-diagnosis and self-debiasing: A proposal for re- ducing corpus-based bias in NLP. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1408- 1424. · DOI · Paper page
  32. John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proxi- mal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347. · arXiv
  33. Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur Parikh. 2020. BLEURT: Learning robust metrics for text genera- tion. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7881-7892, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Weiyan Shi, Emily Dinan, Kurt Shuster, Jason We- ston, and Jing Xu. 2022. When life gives you lemons, make cherryade: Converting feedback from bad responses into good labels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.15893. · arXiv
  35. Tony Sun, Andrew Gaut, Shirlyn Tang, Yuxin Huang, Mai ElSherief, Jieyu Zhao, Diba Mirza, Elizabeth Belding, Kai-Wei Chang, and William Yang Wang. 2019. Mitigating gender bias in natural language processing: Literature review. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, pages 1630-1640, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Niket Tandon, Aman Madaan, Peter Clark, Keisuke Sakaguchi, and Yiming Yang. 2021. Interscript: A dataset for interactive learning of scripts through er- ror feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.07867. · arXiv
  37. Niket Tandon, Aman Madaan, Peter Clark, and Yiming Yang. 2022. Learning to repair: Repairing model out- put errors after deployment using a dynamic memory of feedback. In Findings of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 339-352, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  38. Norbert Wiener. 1960. Some moral and technical conse- quences of automation: As machines learn they may develop unforeseen strategies at rates that baffle their programmers. Science, 131(3410):1355-1358.
  39. Ronald J Williams. 1992. Simple statistical gradient- following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Machine learning, 8(3):229-256.
  40. Tianyi Zhang*, Varsha Kishore*, Felix Wu*, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. Bertscore: Eval- uating text generation with bert. In International Conference on Learning Representations.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Akyürek, A. F., Akyürek, E., Madaan, A., Kalyan, A., Clark, P., Wijaya, D., & Tandon, N.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
  • Boston University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4376654477
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1838193)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (HR0011-18-S-0044)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
natural language feedback, multi-agent reinforcement learning, GPT-3, fine-tuning alternatives, action planning, summarization, alphabetization, text similarity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review